Standard's coverage of the race for mayor

Polly Toynbee yesterday gave an inaccurate picture of the Evening Standard's analysis and commentary in the London mayoral race (A vote against this effete and frivolous Tory is a no-brainer, April 29). From the start of the campaign, we have run in-depth analytical commentaries from independent political experts, including Tony Travers, the LSE's leading academic expert, who is director of the Greater London Group.

Every angle of the campaigns of all parties has received extensive coverage. All major candidates have been given regular platforms and expert columnists such as Anne McElvoy have provided daily political overviews. No newspaper has run more detailed analysis of the election. National newspapers have followed Evening Standard stories and trailed in our wake and our commentators have been in unparalleled demand in the broadcast media.

Andrew Gilligan's investigations into the lack of accountability over the spending of public money involved detailed examinations of public records and thorough research, winning him the coveted Journalist of the Year title at the British Press Awards. The Evening Standard has been widely praised for its initiatives, including a major series of public debates, featuring the three main mayoral candidates and testing their claim to the job.

Indeed, former Guardian editor Peter Preston has emphasised in his media columns that a function of the main London paper is to hold the mayoralty to due scrutiny. Ms Toynbee is entitled to her view of whom she wants as mayor, but she is wrong about the Evening Standard's coverage.Doug WillsManaging editor, Evening Standard